DOCSLIB.ORG

Progress on Carbon Budgets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Progress on Carbon Budgets House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Progress on Carbon Budgets Fifth Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/eacom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 11 September 2013 HC 60 Published on 8 October 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50 Environmental Audit Committee The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House. Current membership Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) (Chair) Peter Aldous MP (Conservative, Waveney) Richard Benyon MP (Conservative, Newbury) [ex-officio] Neil Carmichael MP (Conservative, Stroud) Martin Caton MP (Labour, Gower) Katy Clark MP (Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran) Chris Evans MP (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn) Zac Goldsmith MP (Conservative, Richmond Park) Mark Lazarowicz MP (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith) Caroline Lucas MP (Green, Brighton Pavilion) Caroline Nokes MP (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North) Dr Matthew Offord MP (Conservative, Hendon) Mr Mark Spencer MP (Conservative, Sherwood) Paul Uppal MP (Conservative, Wolverhampton South West) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton, Test) Simon Wright MP (Liberal Democrat, Norwich South) The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Ian Murray MP (Labour, Edinburgh South) Sheryll Murray MP (Conservative, South East Cornwall) Powers The constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152A. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/eacom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Simon Fiander (Clerk), Nicholas Beech (Second Clerk), Lee Nicholson (Committee Specialist), Andrew Wallace (Senior Committee Assistant), Anna Browning (Committee Assistant), Sayeda Begum (Committee Support Assistant) and Nicholas Davies (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environmental Audit Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6150; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] Progress on Carbon Budgets 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 Our latest inquiry 6 2 The carbon budgets 8 Developments in climate change science 8 Feedback effects 9 Climate sensitivity 11 European and international efforts 14 Review of the fourth carbon budget 16 Widening the budgets 21 Emissions from international aviation and shipping 21 Emissions embedded in imports 21 3 Management of carbon budgets 23 Progress to date 23 The need for new policies to meet the carbon budgets 25 Domestic energy efficiency 25 Electricity market reform 27 Fluorinated gases 30 The Government’s management of carbon budgets 30 Role of local authorities 34 Conclusions 37 Recommendations 39 Formal Minutes 41 Witnesses 42 List of printed written evidence 43 List of additional written evidence 43 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 44 Progress on Carbon Budgets 3 Summary The Government is required to set a series of five-year carbon budgets to restrict greenhouse gas emissions so that the UK’s longer term statutory climate change targets are met. Four carbon budgets have been set covering the period up to 2027. In this report we explore the Government’s response to our 2011 report on carbon budgets and take stock of progress against them. Compared with 2011, the case for strong action to avoid dangerous climate change has strengthened. The world is currently on track to warm by 4°C. The Committee on Climate Change’s figures showed that in the UK emissions rose by 3.5% in 2012. Climate models are not yet able to include some potentially significant feedback effects, but continue to be developed, improving our understanding. Since we last reported in 2011, there has been controversy about a mismatch between rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and negligible global temperature increases since the late 1990s, giving the false impression to some that the risk of climate change has become overstated. While the range of likely climate sensitivity may have slightly narrowed, most climate models are still consistent with observations and therefore do not lessen the imperative to take action to avoid dangerous climate change. The carbon budgets are each split into a ‘traded sector’, which is based on the UK’s share of the EU Emissions Trading System emissions limit and covers power and heavy industry, and a ‘non-traded sector’ covering road transport, agriculture and buildings. A lax EU ETS emissions limit may bring pressure to bear on the non-traded sector which will have to produce further emissions reductions to cover the gap left by the traded sector. But there are too many uncertainties at the moment to warrant reviewing and making any changes to the 2023–2027 fourth carbon budget. We concluded in 2011 that the fourth carbon budget as currently set represents the minimum needed to ensure that the emissions reduction target is met, and that loosening the budget following the planned review of that budget in 2014 would put achieving that target in jeopardy. That imperative has not diminished and the Government should commit to not loosening the fourth carbon budget, identify when it will come forward with key policies to bridge the required emissions cuts in the non-traded sector of the fourth carbon budget, and state how it plans to help strengthen the EU ETS. The Carbon Plan—the Government’s plan for meeting the carbon budgets—is out of date and requires revision. Arrangements for managing and reporting progress against the carbon budgets have not been working as intended and improvements are needed to enhance transparency. The National Emissions Target Board, charged with coordinating action across government and ensuring departments are held to account for their share of emissions reductions, should convene regularly and take control of identifying the new policies and incentives needed in the next two years to get the UK on track to meet the third and fourth carbon budgets. Local authorities have an important role to play in driving down emissions, particularly those from buildings, transport and waste. However, there is a significant risk of inaction because of authorities’ constrained fiscal position and the Government’s decision not to 4 Progress on Carbon Budgets implement the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation to place a statutory duty on local authorities to produce low-carbon plans. The Government should reconsider placing a statutory duty on local authorities to produce low-carbon plans for their area and work to ensure that all local authorities are measuring and reporting on their emissions. The Committee on Climate Change found that on a consumption basis the UK’s carbon footprint had increased over the past two decades so that the UK now had one of the largest footprints in the world. In preparation for a global deal on climate change in 2015, inevitably couched in terms of the ‘production’ of emissions, the Government should re- examine with the Committee on Climate Change the possibility of introducing a supplementary target focused on emissions ‘consumption’ embedded in imports, and the potential implications of such a target for the industrial strategies recently published by BIS. In the main body of this report, conclusions are printed in bold and recommendations are printed in bold italics. Progress on Carbon Budgets 5 1 Introduction 1. The Government is required to set a series of five-year carbon budgets to restrict emissions so that the UK’s statutory targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, to cut carbon emissions by at least 34% by 2020 and by at least 80% by 2050 (against a 1990 baseline), are met. Under the Act, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is charged with advising the Government on setting the level of these carbon budgets. The first three carbon budgets were set in May 2009 and the fourth set in June 2011 (Figure 1). Each carbon budget is split into a ‘traded sector’, which is based on the UK’s share of the EU Emissions Trading System emissions limit and covers power and heavy industry, and a ‘non-traded’ sector of road transport, agriculture, buildings, etc. The Act requires the Government to set out a plan to meet the carbon budgets and report progress against that plan.1 The Act also requires the Committee on Climate Change to report annually on progress in reducing emissions to meet the carbon budgets. Figure 1: The carbon budgets Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3 Budget 4 (2008–12) (2013–17) (2018–22) (2023–27) 2 Carbon Budgets (MtCO2e) 3018 2782 2544 1950 Reduction below 1990 levels 22% 28% 34% 50% 2. We published a report on the Carbon Budgets in October 2011.3 That report looked ahead to the December 2011 publication of the Government’s Carbon Plan that replaced the 2009 Low Carbon Transition Plan.4 We recommended that the Carbon Plan be improved by: • including a quantification of the emissions reductions expected from the policies listed in the Plan; • introducing accountability arrangements for government departments to replace the Departmental Carbon Budgeting regime; and • setting out a role for local authorities in delivering emissions reductions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cairns Human Society Passed T
    Asian J. Exp. Sci., Vol. 24, No. 2, 2010; 297-299 Has Human Society Passed a Tipping Point for Effective Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions? John Cairns, Jr. Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA Abstract : Recent publications have indicated that a 2°C increase of global average temperature, once thought acceptable, may involve serious risks (Greg, 2004). A global mean temperature increase of 4°C would be hotter than any time in the last 30 million years, and this increase could be realized as early as 2060–2070 (Leahy, 2009). The prospects of plans for major, immediate reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions at the climate conference at Copenhagen in December 2009 do not seem likely. A climate bill in the US Congress probably will be weakened by numerous amendments, and China and India are not eager to implement major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Even if the Copenhagen Conference recommends major reductions, they are likely to be fiercely resisted because of present economic conditions. Neither politicians nor citizens seem prepared to make the “sacrifices” needed for rapid reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Key words : Rapid climate change, Reduced agricultural productivity, Inadequate freshwater, Societal tipping points, Climate tipping points, Climate conferences. Political reality must be grounded in physical Assimilative Capacity reality or it’s completely useless. In nature, energy and nutrients keep moving John Schellnhuber because the output (wastes) of some species is input Director, Potsdam Institute (resources) for other species. Humans take resources for Climate Impact Research and turn them into things that nature cannot assimilate Two degrees C is already gone as a target.
    [Show full text]
  • Destination Net Zero:Setting and Delivering Ambitious, Credible Targets
    COP26 Universities Network Briefing / march 2021 Destination net zero: setting and delivering ambitious, credible targets Key messages • Stabilising global temperatures at any level requires reaching net zero emissions. Stabilising at 1.5°C would mean reaching net zero global emissions of CO2 by mid-century and substantial reduction of other greenhouse gas emissions; the Paris Agreement also commits to a balance in human-caused sources and sinks of all greenhouse gases in the second half of the century. • Net zero means balancing emissions (sources) with removals (sinks), which requires deep and widespread emissions cuts, as well as scaling up both nature-based and technological removal methods. • Allied to net zero targets, immediate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions are essential, as global temperature rise is driven by cumulative carbon dioxide emissions over time. Reductions in emissions at source (as opposed to offsets and removals) should form the bulk of action to achieve net zero targets. • Individual net zero targets and the pathways to achieve them should be driven by considerations of responsibility and capacity. To reflect their equity obligations under the Paris Agreement, industrialised nations should, as a matter of best practice, consider setting targets for delivering net zero before 2050. • In order to be truly comprehensive, net zero targets should include all seven greenhouse gas groups reported under national inventories (while ensuring net zero CO2 specifically) and cover all economic sectors of activity. • Plans should be specified for how an agreed net zero target will be delivered, and immediate policy action should be taken to put them on track. These plans should be published, as should regular updates on progress towards achieving them.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizing Impacts and Implications of Proposals for Solar Radiation Management, a Form of Climate Engineering
    Characterizing Impacts and Implications of Proposals for Solar Radiation Management, a Form of Climate Engineering Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy Katharine L. Ricke S.B., Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania August, Abstract Even under optimistic emissions scenarios, rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will result in significant increases in global mean tempera- tures and associated effects for the foreseeable future (IPCC, a,b). Concerns that mitigation may be too slow in coming have lead to renewed dialogue within the sci- entific community regarding potential strategies for counteracting global warming through geoengineering, defined as “the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global warming.” (Shepherd et al., ) The geoengineering schemes that are considered most feasible today involve plan- etary albedo modification, or “solar radiation management” (SRM). This thesis ad- dresses several outstanding questions regarding uncertainty in global and regional effects of SRM activities. The technical components of this work are centered on two modeling experiments which use a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model (AOGCM) implemented through climateprediction.net. Drawing upon knowl- edge gained through these experiments and interaction with the broader research community, I explore the international relations implications of SRM and the global governance issues associated with it. The first experiment explored regional differences in climate modified by SRM using a large-ensemble modeling experiment that examines the effects of global temperature stabilization scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Warming: Impending Disaster Or a Hoax
    UGC Approval NO: 40934 CASS-ISSN: 2581-6403 Global Warming: Impending Disaster or a Hoax Pramod Bhatnagar*, Dr C K Singh** *Amity School of Communication, Amity University, Manesar. **Amity School of Communication, Amity University, Mumbai ABSTRACT Despite the consensual findings by the scientific community on global climate change threatening dire consequences, there remains a yawning gap between its recommendations and the actions of the public and policy makers. However, in spite of warnings, not much human activity or alarm is in sight to counter the predicted calamity. Why are there no long- term, comprehensive, and legally binding policy commitments in sight at the national and international level? Will the differences and gaps in communication between the two opposing sides lead to extinction of human race and convert the globe into a mass grave for humanity? This study seeks examine the way the public treats and perceives the threatened environmental disaster due to global warming and other players involved. It identifies those factors’ impact on the public support to global climate change policies or behavioral changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is however, encouraging that positive views about environmental laws and regulations are getting more common among adults with more education. In US, roughly three-quarters of those with a college degree or more (74 per cent) say stricter environmental laws are worth the cost, compared with 59 per cent of those without a college degree (Pew Research Centre, 22 January 2019). Among the US ruling party’s moderates and liberals (who make up about a third of all Republicans and supporters), 60 per cent say stricter environmental laws are worth the cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Climate Change: © the Author(S) 2020
    SSS0010.1177/0306312720941933Social Studies of ScienceLahn 941933research-article2020 Article Social Studies of Science 2021, Vol. 51(1) 3 –27 Changing climate change: © The Author(s) 2020 The carbon budget and the Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions modifying-work of the IPCC https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720941933DOI: 10.1177/0306312720941933 journals.sagepub.com/home/sss Bård Lahn1 Abstract Over the last 10 years, the concept of a global ‘carbon budget’ of allowable CO2 emissions has become ubiquitous in climate science and policy. Since it was brought to prominence by the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, the carbon budget has changed how climate change is enacted as an issue of public concern, from determining the optimal rate of future emissions to establishing a fixed limit for how much emissions should be allowed before they must be stopped altogether. Exploring the emergence of the carbon budget concept, this article shows how the assessment process of the IPCC has offered scientific experts the means to modify how the climate issue is problematized, and discusses the implications of this ‘modifying-work’ for the politics of climate change. It finds that the ‘modified climate issue’ must be seen as an outcome of the ordinary work within established scientific and political institutions, and the agency these institutions afford scientists to enact the issue differently. On this basis, it argues that the case of the carbon budget holds important insights not only for the relationship between climate science and policy, but also for the pragmatist literature on ‘issue formation’ in STS. Keywords carbon budgets, IPCC, issue formation, modifying work, politics of climate change, problematization Introduction What kind of issue is ‘the climate issue’? The question is brought to the fore by the grow- ing interest in the ‘issue-centric’ approach to studying publics and politics in Science and Technology Studies (STS).
    [Show full text]
  • The Cumulative Carbon Budget and Its Implications Richard
    The cumulative carbon budget and its implications Richard Millar,* Myles Allen,** Joeri Rogelj,*** and Pierre Friedlingstein**** Abstract: The cumulative impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions on climate has potentially profound economic and policy implications. It implies that the long-term climate change mitigation challenge should be reframed as a stock problem, while the overwhelming majority of climate policies continue to focus on the flow of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2030 or 2050. An obstacle, however, to the use of a cumulative carbon budget in policy is uncertainty in the size of this budget consistent with any specific temperature-based goal such as limiting warming to 2°C. This arises from uncertainty in the climate response to CO2 emissions, which is relatively tractable, and uncertainty in future warming due to non-CO2 drivers, which is less so. We argue these uncertainties are best addressed through policies that recognize the need to reduce net global CO2 emissions to zero to stabilize global temperatures but adapt automatically to evolving climate change. Adaptive policies would fit well within the Paris Agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Keywords: climate change, climate policy, fossil fuels, uncertainty, integrated assessment, carbon budgets JEL classification: Q540, Q580, Q350 *Department of Physics, University of Oxford, e-mail: [email protected] **School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, e-mail: [email protected] *** International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, e-mail: [email protected] ****University of Exeter, e-mail: [email protected] I. Introduction Climate change, and its associated economic impact, is one of the most significant pressures that human society is placing on the natural environment (Rockström et al., 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • From the Sun to the Earth: Climate 1879-2129
    From the sun to the earth: climate 1879-2129 Myles Allen Departments of Physics, University of Oxford [email protected] Oxford University South Oxford on January 5th, 2003 Photo courtesy of Dave Mitchell of Photo courtesy Oxford University The problem in Autumn 2000: a consistently displaced Atlantic jet-stream The Atlantic Jet Stream (500hPa wind speed) Autumn climatology (colours) & Autumn 2000 (contours) Blackburn & Hoskins, 2003 Oxford University But the jet-stream varies with the weather: how can we pin down the role of climate change? “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get” (Lorenz, 1982) and in the 21st century: “Climate is what you affect, weather is what gets you” Oxford University Autumn 2000 events “were extreme, but cannot in themselves be attributed to climate change.” Oxford University It has happened before Oxford University Osney lock flood marks, 1894 and 1947 Oxford University Shillingford historic flood levels 2003 Oxford University Areas of risk in Oxford You are here Oxford University Climate has changed in the past Oxford University Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past millenium Oxford University Factors affecting climate Oxford University Volcanic eruptions: the main external driver of short-term fluctuations Oxford University Solar variability: the main external driver of long-term fluctuations -- until recently Oxford University Reconstructions of solar output, 1600-present Oxford University Evidence for solar influence on climate 2 North polar temperatures 0 Solar output
    [Show full text]
  • Probability in the Attribution and Prediction of Climate Change
    Probability in the attribution and prediction of climate change Myles Allen Departments of Physics, University of Oxford [email protected] Oxford University What was the most unrealistic aspect of the film “The Day After Tomorrow”? Oxford University South Oxford on January 5th, 2003 Photo courtesy of Dave Mitchell of Photo courtesy Oxford University The problem in October 2000 and January 2003: a consistently displaced Atlantic jet-stream The Atlantic Jet Stream (500hPa wind speed) Autumn climatology (colours) & Autumn 2000 (contours) Blackburn & Hoskins, 2003 Oxford University But the jet-stream varies with the weather: how can we pin down the role of climate change? “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get” (Lorenz, 1982) and in the 21st century: “Climate is what you affect, weather is what gets you” Oxford University Autumn 2000 events “were extreme, but cannot in themselves be attributed to climate change.” 1947 2000 Oxford University It has happened before: Shillingford historic flood levels 2003 Oxford University The 2001 conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “Most of the warming over the past 50 years is is likely (meaning a better than 2 in 3 chance) to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” But what does this tell us about flooding in Oxford? Oxford University Model-simulated changes in extreme rainfall in southern England 4-year 12-year event event 2090 30-year event 2000 1860 Oxford University And now for the next century: carbon dioxide trends Note
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliografía
    1 Bibliografía “7 Million Premature Deaths Annually Linked to Air Pollution”, Organización Mundial de la Salud (25 de marzo de 2014). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/. “10-Year Treasury Inflation-Indexed Security, Constant Maturity”, FRED Economic Data (17 de marzo de 2014). http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DFII10/. Acemoglu, Daron, Philippe Aghion, Leonardo Bursztyn y David Hemous. “The Environment and Directed Technical Change”, American Economic Review 102.1 (2012): 131–166. http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess- disseminate/1721.1/61749. “Acid Test”, Economist (23 de noviembre de 2013). http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21590349- worlds-seas-are-becoming-more-acidic-how-much-matters-not-yet-clear. Alderman, Liz. “A Greener Champagne Bottle”, New York Times (1 de septiembre de 2010): B1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/business/energy- environment/01champagne.html. Aldy, Joseph E., y William A. Pizer. “Comparability of Effort in International Climate Policy Architecture”, The Harvard Project on Climate Agreements Discussion Paper 14–62 (enero de 2014). http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/dp62_aldy-pizer.pdf. Allison, Graham T. Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe. Times Books, 2004. http://books.google.com/books?id=jDFY6FY4aakC&dq=isbn:0805076514. Altshuller, A. P. “Assessment of the Contribution of Chemical Species to the Eye Irritation Potential of Photochemical Smog”, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 28.6 (1978): 594–598. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00022470.1978.10470634# .UfkVeSTD99. “Ambient (Outdoor) Air Quality and Health”, Organización Mundial de la Salud (marzo de 2014). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/.
    [Show full text]
  • Biographies and Abstracts | Meeting a Global Temperature Goal of 1.5 C
    Biographies and Abstracts | Meeting a Global Temperature Goal of 1.5 C Introduction David Warrilow OBE, FRMetS ABSTRACT | David will provide the background to setting global climate targets and the IPCC 1.5C report. He will consider the origin of the concept in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its subsequent development both as a scientific and political issue. BIOGRAPHY | David Warrilow was a senior government science advisor and international negotiator on climate change and environmental issues, such as ozone depletion and air pollution. He led the UK delegations to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for over 20 years and was a lead negotiator for the EU on the scientific issues covered in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). He managed a significant research programme at the Department of Energy and Climate Change providing underpinning scientific evidence and analysis of climate change, energy and ozone depletion in support of the UK’s domestic and international policies. Prior to this he undertook research at the Met Office on the development of observing systems, hydrometeorology and flood design, and climate modelling of land surface process. Since retiring from the civil service in January 2016 David has undertaken several speaking engagements on the scientific background to the Paris Climate Agreement and on the use of science to support policy. He was appointed President of the Royal Meteorological in October 2018. Background to the 1.5 goal – what does it mean and context Professor Myles Allen, University of Oxford BIOGRAPHY | Professor Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science, Leader, Climate Research Programme, University of Oxford.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Warming
    Global warming "Climate change" redirects here. Global warming is the long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system. It is a major aspect of climate change and has been demonstrated by direct temperature measurements and by measurements of various effects of the warming.[5][6] Global warming and climate change are often used interchangeably.[7] But more accurately, global warming is the mainly human-caused increase in global surface temperatures and its projected continuation,[8] while climate change includes both global warming and its effects, such as changes in precipitation.[9] While there have been prehistoric periods of global warming,[10] many Average global temperatures from 2014 to 2018 observed changes since the mid-20th century compared to a baseline average from 1951 to 1980, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space have been unprecedented over decades to Studies millennia.[5][11] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report concluded, "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century".[12] The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Climate model projections summarized in the report indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in a The average annual temperature at the earth's surface moderate scenario, or as much as 2.6 to 4.8 °C has risen since the late 1800s, with year-to-year (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in an extreme scenario, variations (shown in black) being smoothed out (shown depending on the rate of future greenhouse gas in red) to show the general warming trend.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Chapter 1: Framing and Context 1 2 Coordinating Lead Authors: Myles Allen (UK), Opha Pauline Dube (Botswana), William Solecki
    Second Order Draft Chapter 1 IPCC SR1.5 1 1. Chapter 1: Framing and Context 2 3 Coordinating Lead Authors: Myles Allen (UK), Opha Pauline Dube (Botswana), William Solecki 4 (USA) 5 6 Lead Authors: Fernando Aragón–Durand (Mexico), Wolfgang Cramer (France), Mikiko Kainuma 7 (Japan), Jatin Kala (Australia), Natalie Mahowald (USA), Yacob Mulugetta (Ethiopia), Rosa Perez 8 (Philippines), Morgan Wairiu (Solomon Islands), Kirsten Zickfeld (Canada) 9 10 Contributing Authors: Stephen Humphreys (UK), Graciela Raga (Argentina), Bronwyn Hayward 11 (New Zealand), Diana Liverman (USA/UK), Mark Richardson (UK), Christopher Smith (UK), 12 Purnamita Dasgupta (India), Maisa Rojas (Chile), Will Steffen (Australia), Haile Eakin (USA) 13 14 Review Editors: Ismail Elgizouli Idris (Sudan), Andreas Fischlin (Switzerland), Xuejie Gao (China) 15 16 Chapter Scientist: Richard Millar (UK) 17 18 Date of Draft: 21/12/17 19 20 Notes: TSU compiled version 21 Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 1-1 Total pages: 78 Second Order Draft Chapter 1 IPCC SR1.5 1 Table of Contents 2 3 1. Chapter 1: Framing and Context ................................................................................................ 1 4 5 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4 6 7 Building a knowledge base for a 1.5°C World .................................................................... 8 8 1.1.1 Pathways, Impacts, and Sustainable Development ........................................................
    [Show full text]